|
<br />000585
<br />
<br />l~'(",,, .....umll/II {}HfH/(' September 1991
<br />
<br />Agenda 21, ,
<br />continued from front page
<br />
<br />The Agenda ,21 text en atmo-
<br />sphere, which is ~ere develeped
<br />than mest ethers, reflects unre-
<br />solved'.issues between develeping
<br />countries and developed cauntries,
<br />especially the United States" ever
<br />energy consumptian and green-
<br />. ,house gas emissians. Statements
<br />such as that of the Myanmar (for-
<br />merly Burma) delegatian that
<br />"industrialized nations use three-
<br />, , quarters .of the world~s energy
<br />resources, with 'only one-fourth .of
<br />its populatien,' set the tene fer the
<br />discussion.
<br />The United States and ather
<br />developed countries opposed efforts
<br />to single them out in a number '.of
<br />. areas. such as managing energy" .
<br />demand, setting energy efficiency ,
<br />standarq.s, waste minimizatio~, in~
<br />creasing'funding fer research and
<br />develapment on ,renewable energy
<br />sources, and energy taxes.
<br />In some cases, strong pelitical
<br />differences threatened the status of
<br />an entire text. The United' States
<br />threatened to reject the text on
<br />oceans if 'it contained an Icelandic,
<br />prepesal for a ban en .ocean dump-
<br />ing .of low-level radioactive wastes.
<br />The United States frequently
<br />stood alone in oppasing.demands by
<br />ether ceuntries fer new legal, in-
<br />struments. On biotechnology, the
<br />United States resisted a German
<br />proposal for a legally binding cede
<br />of conduct for safety procedures.
<br />, The U.S. delegatian also opposed a
<br />prapesal by developing countries,
<br />supperted by the Eurepean Com-
<br />munity ceuntries, far a new legally
<br />binding instrument on toxic chemi-
<br />cals and hazardous wastes. The
<br />United States argued, that ceun-
<br />tries should be encouraged to ratify
<br />the 1989 Basel Convention on in-
<br />ternational trade in hazardeus
<br />wastes.' It also opposed a propasal
<br />for develeping a cade of practice.for
<br />solid waste dispasal and anether
<br />praposal for ,national per capita
<br />waste .productien rates.
<br />
<br />An underlying seUrce of teq-
<br />. sion at the PrepCom wail the feeling
<br />widely shared by developing coun-
<br />tries that the agenda and secretarilit
<br />decuments focus primarily en envi-
<br />ronmental issues of cencern to the
<br />develeped countries, while giving,
<br />less attention to development and
<br />internatianal econemic issues .of
<br />primary concern to the develeping
<br />'countries. The latter issues were
<br />'not dlscussed at all until'the third
<br />, week .of the PrepCem.
<br />China and the Graup afn (G77)
<br />develaping countries submitted a
<br />draft an the "strUcture and organ!,
<br />zation' .of Agenda 21; which called
<br />far the Agenda 21 dacument to in-
<br />clude a sectio'n under each pragram .
<br />area on the means .of implementa-
<br />tion, including fmancial. reseurces
<br />and capacity-building. The draft
<br />was approved by the PrepCom with '
<br />rehitively minor medificatiens.
<br />Despite earlier resistance by
<br />, develaping country delegatians, as
<br />well as PrepCom Chairman Temmy
<br />Koh .of Singapere, delegates to the
<br />'PrepCam agreed to extend
<br />PrepCom 4 from four weeks' to. five,
<br />and to include weekend meetings.
<br />Even sa, some delegates and ob-
<br />servers are doubtful that PrepCom
<br />4 will be able to complete thenego-
<br />'tiations on the wide range. .of
<br />proe-ram areas that have been pre-
<br />posed in UNCED secretariat
<br />documents. Accarding to .one esti,
<br />mate, there could be as many as 100
<br />pregram areas to be, negetiated in
<br />New York next March.
<br />
<br />,',
<br />
<br />ChJ:lrter, ~ntinued "{rom front j,age
<br />
<br />. The "transfer .of adequate, new
<br />and additional finance resources to'
<br />the developing cauntries.'
<br />As a result efpracedural wran-
<br />gling over the G77 demand, the
<br />only agreement that, could be
<br />reached was that a revised version
<br />.of the canselidated decument wauld
<br />be ferwarded to PrepCom 4.
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />Earth Charter Draft
<br />Includes'
<br />Citizen's Network
<br />Language
<br />
<br />The U.S. delegation used ,
<br />language from a set .of prin-
<br />ciples drafted by a working
<br />greup .of the U.S. Citizens
<br />, Network far the first negoti-
<br />ating draft of the Earth
<br />Charter,' a declaratien of
<br />principles by which nations
<br />should .conduct themselves
<br />in relation to the environ-
<br />ment.. '
<br />The U.S.' proposed twe'
<br />principles from the Citizens
<br />Netwark's draft for,the pre-
<br />, amble .of the Earth Charter.
<br />, The' fll'st states, "Many .of
<br />our past perceptions and re-
<br />lationships are no langer
<br />adequate.' , The second as-
<br />serts, 'Wefullyrecegnizeour
<br />:mutual interdependence:
<br />We must live in balance with
<br />nature te ensure the conti-
<br />nuity and quality of life fer
<br />future generations."
<br />The, Citizens .'Network
<br />'draft was also the basis for
<br />U.S. preposals for language
<br />en access to infarmatien and.
<br />on the precautianary prin- '
<br />ciple, ,which holds' that
<br />environmental impact state.
<br />ments should be publicly
<br />. prepared and presented in
<br />advance .of any prepased ac-
<br />tivity which is "iikely te havei, a significant impact on the
<br />national environment.", Ce-
<br />Chair of, 'the. Citizens
<br />Netwark Working Group on
<br />the Earth Charter, Angela,
<br />, Harkavy, worked with the
<br />U.S. delegatien on their sug-
<br />gestion fer langUage fer the
<br />preamble 'to the decument.
<br />
|